American history tv only on cspan3. Each week american artifacts exceed to museums and historic basis to learn about American History. Visit the trail of tears gallery at the National Museum of the American Indian in washington dc, which looks at the National Debate over the 1830 indian removal indian removal act and its impact on southern tribes. Associate curator paul chaat smith leads us through the americans exhibit, which examines how indian imagery is prominent in childrens toys and mascots. It is built on a paradox, the riddle. The paradox is this in 2018 the United States is a country of 330 million people. And indians are perhaps 1 of that population. Most americans live in urban areas and parts of the country where they never actually see American Indians. And yet American Life in images, advertising, mascots, surround people every single day. The show is about exploring the strange contradiction of how prevalent American Indians are in American Life, really from the earliest memories of americans throughout their life, and yet somehow it was never really noticed much, never seemed is important. The Territorial Team decided to call this phenomenon indians everywhere. Its normalizing whats actually a really weird phenomenon. We looked and we couldnt find any other country in which one ethnic group has been used for so many different purposes for such an extraordinarily long time into the present read present. And look at the vastness of it, the uniqueness of it, and explored the reasons for why it exists. We have over 300 objects and images of representation for American Indians before the country began up to the present. They cover every manner of advertising for every sort of product. And we have a handful of major objects that will get a significant amount of visitor attention, including a motorcycle from 1948. People who love motorcycles often revered the Indian Motorcycle as a special model. It was at the height of American Engineering craftsmanship and style. And whats interesting to us about the motorcycle is that the name of the brand was chosen to distinguish it from competition, particularly the u. K. The company has gone through many changes through the years. Ownership has changed multiple times. Almost nothing exists from the early days when it started out as a bicycle factory. And so it went through all of these changes in ownership. The one thing that survives is indian. That becomes the more valuable thing about the product. You see how much they emphasize that and the Color Options are all indian related. You dont choose Something Like that unless you feel it adds value, that sort of name. One of the things the exhibition is about is how indians add value to products, entertainment, and ultimately to the nation itself. Something people often look for was something about the local nfl team here in washington. We werent really sure how to present the objects, because we thought them to be a little boring. But we chose to do was in multiple places, really show how these mascots are in everyday life, rather than show them by themselves so here we have a photograph of Robert Griffin the third, a sensational quarterback for the redskins. What we were interested in is to really appreciate why people support teams. Very few people say we say come a which team has the best name echo you usually support a team because youre in a region, because your family and friends support it. The teams are chosen by rich guys, and it is a determinative thing. Sport play a huge role in civic life, bringing people together. Having that image of Robert Griffin the third with a young fan feels like a generous approach to this, while at the same time it is a dictionarydefined slur. Most are certainly opposed to it. For me it is someone who lives in the Washington Area for a main representation on a daily basis. At the same time we are not about trashing people who support the team. For people who look for washington redskins, it is here. I think everyone understands if a team came up no one would choose such a name. It was part of our effort to be welcoming to people, people who dont necessarily agree with us. Ive always thought the Chicago Blackhawks have one of the most attractive logos as far as anesthetics as far as anesthetics. As far as aesthetics. Again, what we think is interesting is there such a tiny number of other examples. People say, what about the notre dame irish, what about the Dallas Cowboys . Its like 1000 to one. We are looking what makes this both socially acceptable and something you dont really need to think about. Most people never thought about it, it just seemed right to call a Team Warriors or indians or apache. Thats really what we are trying to get at, really look at how pervasive it is an strange it is once you take a look at it. This photograph is of ocean is of michelle obama, with people wearing Chicago Blackhawks jerseys. Something just to show how this becomes normalized and ordinary. When we thought about how to show this in the exhibition, the decision we made is its impossible to show its about how people usually decide to support a team, usually because thats where they live. It tends to be a Unifying Force in many ways. And it comes at a way that dehumanizes American Indians. This is something that happens to native american people. Rarely does it happen to other groups in the United States. There is not one opinion as far as American Indians on this phenomenon. Two examples that are clearer the cleveland indians, which most people would say the image feels very stereotypical. I think most nonindian people would say that feels out of place. The team is now phasing that logo out. Washington redskins, being a dictionarydefined slur. Others arent clear, lack ox, or the name indians, without a stereotypical name blackhawks, or the name indians, without a stereotypical name. They used the headrest to promote a team in the early days. Now they are still called the warriors, but they made no reference to American Indians. I think those are interesting things to debate. Our point of view is how vast the phenomenon is. When you decided to say this one is ok, or Chicago Blackhawks, if you make this change its fine. They are really looking at the larger picture. I think every exhibition should have a photograph of Elvis Presley in it. Just to give an example of how many distinguished americans have found themselves wearing a headdress, Elvis Presley did a movie in which he played in native american character. Others werent playing in native american character, including Franklin Delano roosevelt, richard nixon, the famous union leader jimmy hoffa, cher. The reasons why people warhead dresses in these particular ways very. Again how people would never think in this context would end up wearing a headdress. And through most of the countrys history would seem like something that just made sense. When we talk about these representations surrounding americans throughout their lives, one of the most important ways is through movies and television. We have a section in this exhibition, which really shows 100 years of these images, going away from 1930 1935 movies stagecoach all the way to the Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt and other contemporary television comedies. And its a little bit like the celebrities. That situation comedies in the 60s and 70s had nothing to do with indians. They would routinely have some indian themed shows. It could be the monsters. It could be seinfeld. It was interesting to us, because television was a more intimate form than film because its in your living room, its in your house. Actually watching indians in American Life on your tv and in your living room. If you ask people about those tv shows, they may not remember. Often they say, oh yes, that brady bunch episode. I remember all about it. I always knew i wanted this in a show, but would probably decide against it, because kids today didnt grow up with this image. This is called the rca test pattern. In the early days it would be broadcast at the beginning of the broadcast day, at the end, and often throughout the day, when Television Still had a limited amount of programming. Actually you see this image now in hipster tshirts, in video games. It has established a life of itself. What was interesting about it was in the late 40s and 50s when tv was new, its a completely different kind of light that didnt exist. Its this weird machine thats in your house. The engineers wanted something that could help them actually adjust the broadcast quality, the picture quality. That explains the lines and the numbers and everything. They also wanted the drawing to get that quality as well. Everyone knows an indian and a headdress. It also signifies americanness. I think theres something spooky and subversive. Its in your living room, its on early in the morning, late at night. I somehow feel there is something bizarre going on with the american conscience, somehow getting into peoples heads in a way they dont fully understand even today. We have three galleries that look at these huge moments in American History. 50 years after the American Revolution, the United States passed the indian removal act of 1830. What we are really looking at here is how the indian removal act is the most significant law ever passed, more important than any other treaty or federal action. We look at why we believe that to be true. We look at it in this moment in which american democracy was on trial. In 1830, the United States was the only Representative Democracy in the world. Revolutions had failed in europe. Despite all the horrific flaws in the United States in 1830, the enslavement of black people, women couldnt vote, indians being dispossessed. Even two years later, white men couldnt vote until they owned property. All these terrible flaws in the United States, it still was a beacon of hope around the world. It still was a country that took seriously its enlightening ideals. In 1830, this National Conversation that had been simmering for some time comes to a head and the Jackson Administration proposes the indian removal act. What its about is trying to manage this problem, which there are Indian Nations in the state. It feels intolerable to a certain number of americans that there should be these selfdescribed Indian Nation within the United States. In 1830, the act proposes something that is really quite extraordinary. It really imagines a future in which the United States would exist without American Indians. It proposes an exchange of lands so that indians inside the territorial borders of the United States would be west of the mississippi. This is one solution, igniting a National Debate. And what we show in this section is how many points of view there were on this. American indians had a great deal of agency and influence in the conversation. The cherokee leader was a National Political figure in the United States. And both politicians and members of congress, but also civic groups. There were legislators opposed to what this act was talking about, which was a removal of American Indians. We knew that most americans today, if they knew the term trail of tears, they understand that it was a moment of National Shame for the United States. We know people understand it was something the country regrets. What we were interested in doing is trying to explain how there was a real National Debate about this that people at the time, including people in congress, predicted that it would not go well. We wanted to show that it was a National Conversation that happened. In this section we showed a range of points of view. We start with president jefferson, who understood that there was a contradiction in his mind about having these Indian Nations within the borders of the United States. He thought a lot about what the Different Solutions might be to that. Usually, with some form of removal dispossession that was being talked about, during the early decades of the 19th century the cotton kingdom was coming into its own. It was clear cotten could be engineered into Economic Development in the deep south. Indians are pressured to remove themselves, and some of them do accept offers of removal in exchange for lands and money. But this debate is a moment in which the country really has to think about what it stands for. We show points of view of president jefferson, general ross. We talk about different civic organizations that were involved as well. A particular member of congress, who spoke really eloquently against the removal act, and again from the point of view as a betrayal of american principles. So i think president jackson in a way gets too much credit for the removal. There were two choices behind this before he came into office. He was certainly the manager and executor of the policy. And he oversaw the passage of the indian removal act. It interesting it becomes synonymous with this one part of his administration, because for most of the decades since he left office he was much more known for other policies, such as the bank of the United States, being the person the first person who was in from virginia massachusetts to become president. It shows how history changes. At the same time, if you had to say who was the person most responsible, it was certainly president jackson. One thing thats a surprise to most visitors is how it was in congress, it passed with a margin, but it wasnt an overwhelming margin. I think its fair to say that after this debate, it really became National Policy in a genuine way. Even though the vote was split, once it was enacted into law it really does become the policy of the United States of america. One of the things that was set in place was a template for a kind of paternalistic approach towards American Indians. This was really good for American Indians. They are going to be much better off west of the sith west of the mississippi. They are going to be just fine and they are being compensated. The humanitarian argument carried over in the sense of central policies following this, that basically said the United States knew what was best for American Indians. Its really about words and texts. It starts with reading the act, which visitors can do. Its not very long, 200 few hundred words. It never directly makes references to any particular indian tribe. It is also a real estate pitch. You know, lets exchange lets come to a deal, exchange lands. If American Indians choose not to accept lands in the west, they can stand everything will be fine. Its extraordinarily misleading. Its also revealing in that it does state pretty clearly that the states in the south would grow and economic wealth and power, an explicit goal that this would help build this part of the United States, which is being held back by these internal nations. Its very clear what its saying. We are doing this for Economic Development reasons. It implies that this is voluntary, that it is an offer. It is misleading in that it is not targeting Indian Nations in the south. After the indian removal act was passed in may of 1830, Indian Nations still fought against it. They still marshaled public opinion, they filed suits in the United States Supreme Court to prevent it. And, you know, kept fighting throughout the 1830s. Some Indian Nations did go ahead with removal. Its important to remember conditions indians were under attack. A lot of indians understood where this was all going. The cherokees fault to the very end, and its become understood in american nation. One of the things we wanted to accomplish in this exhibition was to show that this is a large national, even global event. Its not really about the cherokee, it is more about the five civilized tribes that transformed national borders, transformed to national economies. It was also a massive project for the United States to carry out. President jackson had to personally sign every plan for the United States. He spent one miserable december signing thousands of them by hand. They passed a law that said some details could sign the deeds. It gives you an idea of how small the federal government was. In this section, which we call the machinery of removal, we focused on how a project it was, and how successful it was in one of its goals, to create economic wealth in the United States. And a catastrophe, to imagine it could do that and that this would be a good thing for American Indians. Of course it was a disastrous failure. One of the things few people understand is that removal from the passage of the act until the final removal treaties were amended and changed and the final payments were made out, it actually spend it actually extended nine president ial administrations. President jackson wasnt actually the president during the final jury of the trail of tears. Again, it became a huge National Policy. It was epic in scope. It involved half of the states of the union in removal routes, involved west of the mississippi. It was expensive. It was budgeted for 500,000. Some scholars estimate it would be Something Like 100 million total. It was something that not only affected the south but created economic wealth in new england. Cotton was an important commodity on the planet. We are looking at how massive a project this was. Orchestrated by a bad president , and the National Policy carried it out. It was epic, it was brutal, it was visionary. By the end of the decade, the wealthiest americans in the country has the explosion was the removal, the removal of the last. To have itself be a region. We focus on the kingdom a lot. Its important to point out that the five civilized tribes were considered slave states. Most indians in those nations didnt own slaves. They were, by law, slave states. They reinstated slavery when they went into indian territory, and they fought with confederacy. One of the goals has avoid spent to show indians as human, as capable of all the good and evil and with any other kinds of people do. We have an image of the house. A native leader who had hundreds of enslaved persons, and his mansion was based on one by napoleon and france. This is something the museum is taking on to show the complexity of some of this history. The cotton kingdoms success of building it came at an extraordinarily high cost. First of all the enslavement of millions of human beings. The dispossession of native americans. Even that wealth, even accessibility on the country. That enslaved labor results in the civil war. , the worst war in American History. The end result of this is something that the country is still coming to terms with. There is an argument to say that indian removal was the most significant event between the American Revolution and the civil war. So when American Indians arrived in indian territory its a different landscape, a different environment, different situation. I think people from the 1830s would be really surprised if they understood 21stcentury come of the same Indian Nations would indians would reconstitute themselves. They still have a sovereign status. It was in oklahoma i was in oklahoma and you see Television Commercials in the major channels. These are nations that have actual genuine power today. And have recovered in a way that would be shocking to people. That certainly is an element to the story that they really want to be understood. They not only survived but they prospered in this new place. The trail of tears is a really famous event. Pretty much all americans know that phrase trail of tears. I think everyone knows its something that was done to indians, and we know Andrew Jackson was part of that story. What we found is intended to be seen as a shape of moment in history. We hope to show how it was a much larger event. We operated from what people already think and people already know. So at the concluding section of the exhibit we look at trail of tears in National Memory over time. What interesting is the trail of tears was never forgotten by American Indians. But in National Memory it faded away pretty quickly. In the late 19th century, into the first half of the 20th century, its rarely in textbooks as a major event involving indians. And its often completely omitted from discussions of the Jackson Administration there arent many books written that touched upon it. Is the first thing people think of when they think of president jackson. People are really familiar with that phrase. In our last section we show how that didnt just happen by accident. It was contrary of young indian women in early at the 20th century that launched a campaign that started to catch on. It was a cherokee woman who dressed in clothing. To talk to people about indian removal. The phrase trail of tears caught on. It was not until the 1950s that it started appearing a lot and not until the 60s and 70s that it became wellknown. We are always fascinated about how American History changes over time. Its different than how people understood it at other times. We see that the Largest National park is the trail of tears national trail. We see native americans walking and riding through that. You see motorcycle clubs, all kinds of people enjoying that. Its not something thats understood, it is a major event in American History. What we hope this exhibition will do is enlarge the understanding of it. That it really was an epic chapter. It was about national borders, global economies and policies about indians that had an effect long after the actual removal. This billboard behind me, we chose that because we wanted to sort of suggests something provocative that has visitors kind of question what they may already think they know about it. They say this is a moment of Huge National significance. Not an unfortunate policy carried out by a single president. You can watch this and other american artifacts programs by visiting our website, cspan. Org history
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.